Jump to content

Requesting a Clearance "As Filed"


Recommended Posts

I've heard a lot of unique, funny, and weird things said on the network while controlling. One thing that a small portion of pilots say to me is something I find particularly weird is requesting a clearance "as filed." I find this weird, and also ironic, because in some of these instances they have a bad route and they need an amendment to their flight plan. Just thought I'd throw it out there: Requesting a clearance "as filed" doesn't really change the odds of getting a new route if one is needed. I'd really like to ask why some pilots feel this is something worth saying. I'd love to hear some opinions on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason pilots say “with you at flxxx” or “ready for taxi to the active”. Just bad habits. I admit I’ve said it a few times myself in the past and, it’s not because I thought my chances of getting my clearance as I filed it is better. It’s just poor phraseology picked up from various places.

Josh Jenk

CZVR C1 controller

TRHzE8k.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

VATSIM goes through phases where certain 'phrases' are common in the community, pilots used to "request shutdown clearance" once parked.

 

The one that I find common nowadays is pilots not knowing the difference between a Flight level and an Altitiude and say things like..."P[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing flight level 4000 feet".

 

I think if they hear it enough and its not corrected by ATC they percieve it to be correct.

 

I don't hear "As filed" that much in Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Board of Governors

Real world, many years ago, at the towered airport I normally fly out of.... The tower chief had a particular distaste for poor form/bad habits. Some people then (and still, unfortunately) would call tower for takeoff clearance when ready to depart saying something like, "xxx Tower, Skyhawk One Two Three Four Five, ready for takeoff, number one, runway XX." I almost lost my teeth laughing so hard when he retorted, "Skyhawk One Two Three Four Five, I decide whether you're number one or not, not you." He then immediately asked me, "Twin Cessna Niner eight seven six five, are you ready to go?" To which I quickly replied that I was. He then said, "Twin Cessna Niner eight seven six five, go ahead around that Skyhawk over there, wind xxx at xx, runway xx, cleared for takeoff...."

 

Was "interesting" to see the wide open mouths of the student and instructor in the Skyhawk as I taxied by them and proceeded onto the runway.... Funny, I never heard that instructor's students make that mistake again...

Don Desfosse
Vice President, Membership

Link to post
Share on other sites
Real world, many years ago, at the towered airport I normally fly out of.... The tower chief had a particular distaste for poor form/bad habits. Some people then (and still, unfortunately) would call tower for takeoff clearance when ready to depart saying something like, "xxx Tower, Skyhawk One Two Three Four Five, ready for takeoff, number one, runway XX." I almost lost my teeth laughing so hard when he retorted, "Skyhawk One Two Three Four Five, I decide whether you're number one or not, not you." He then immediately asked me, "Twin Cessna Niner eight seven six five, are you ready to go?" To which I quickly replied that I was. He then said, "Twin Cessna Niner eight seven six five, go ahead around that Skyhawk over there, wind xxx at xx, runway xx, cleared for takeoff...."

 

Was "interesting" to see the wide open mouths of the student and instructor in the Skyhawk as I taxied by them and proceeded onto the runway.... Funny, I never heard that instructor's students make that mistake again...

Do not try this at home on VATSIM.

spacer.png

Evan Reiter
Boston Virtual ARTCC/ZBW Community Manager

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
I've heard a lot of unique, funny, and weird things said on the network while controlling. One thing that a small portion of pilots say to me is something I find particularly weird is requesting a clearance "as filed." I find this weird, and also ironic, because in some of these instances they have a bad route and they need an amendment to their flight plan. Just thought I'd throw it out there: Requesting a clearance "as filed" doesn't really change the odds of getting a new route if one is needed. I'd really like to ask why some pilots feel this is something worth saying. I'd love to hear some opinions on this.

 

Hi.

Im one of these pilots who usually call "requst IFR clearance as filed" and I can explain it from virtual pilots perspective. First of all need to note I started to say like that not that long time ago, maybe several months ago, whereas flying online since 2010. So yes, I know the full recommended request ....

Well, the main reason of we call like that is to make it short. You guys, Im sure, understand what we mean - "request IFR clearance, flight plan is filed". The call "request IFR clearance as filed" is just shorter. Yes, maybe its not that correct in terms of good-English-language but the main point of phraseology is to understand each other from the first try. Flying mostly in Europe I have never been misunderstood this way. For better understanding we can take more of examples how virtual pilots with years of experience talks to controller ..... for example, lets take push and start radio:

- Delta 119, push and start (you can already see I miss the "request" word, same reason - make it shorter)

- Delta 119, push and start approved facing east

- Facing east, Delta 119

In this example I dont repeat that push and start is approved, I just say "facing east". Make it shorter.

 

Generally, I think there were 2 main reasons to make it happen ....

1) Some day we got we could understand each other with the controller using less words

2) Experience of extra loaded radio frequency (especially on fly-ins) taught us to talk quickly and shorter (when ATC have 20 planes under control you basically dont have time to tell the story, you know)

 

So its just the same we started to cut off some words, like in the example above or another example: "Delta 119, taxi" - we request taxi but we cut the "request" word out. When ATC gives "Delta 119, descend FL120" we sometimes readback just "120, Delta 119" even without "flight level" being cut off ....

 

At the same time this approach doesnt mean we dont care. No. We do care about ATC understands us. We do. And when we feel there is any type of misunderstanding we basically stop to cut our message and start to use more full variant. We do care ATC understands us, we really do, but we sometimes dont really see a reason to make it full for situation when ATC can understand us if we call it shortly. And the same way it happen in real life, at least what I`ve heard myself. In real life radio comms often goes off the road of how its in the "book" ...

One of the examples:

- Aero 211, descend FL200

- 200, Aero 211

- Aero 211, turn right heading 355

- heading 355, Aero 211

This is cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ic example when we maximum cut the readback of "flight level" saying just 200, but since we cut this way we now say "heading 355" to not make the controller confused. And, for example, if the controller will ask us to confirm something .... like this:

- Aero 211, descend FL200

- 200, Aero 211

- Aero 211, confirm FL200

- FL200, Aero 211

Once we feel the controller starts to misunderstand us we stop cutting .... in this example above all the way futher we will not readback just "200", we will say "flight level 200" or "descend flight level 200". We have to make the ATC understand us from the first try not asking to confirm anything - thats the priority for us. And we adapt our messages to the ATC this way. If the controller can understand short messages - we can say shortly, if ATC doesnt understand immediately what we mean - we will make it longer and more official, more "book-ish". Its just basically the same way controller say "FL three zero zero" or "FL three hundred". Some pilots dont understand "three hundred" and this way the controller will stick to "three zero zero". Adaptation.

 

Back to 2010 I was taught to call the full request saying flight level, destination airfield .... but ATC does check flight plan anyway so I dont see any reason to take more frequency time than needed. Again, especially if there is a lot of traffic who want something from the controller.

 

Speaking from the good-language perspective, to be honest, you just made me think about it, about not looking like an idiot. Yes, I find "request IFR clearance as filed" incorrect this way, and maybe saying just "request IFR clearance" will be more cool (btw Ive heard some pilots do so, for example, "Easy 199, request departure clearance"). We can say "request IFR clearance, flight plan is filed" but we dont do that because we feel we make the message longer and take more time on the radio without reason, so we just cut the "flight plan" off.

 

Hope it helps to better understand why pilots do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alexander: it is still weird, since it is not needed to state that you filed a flight plan in the first place. You wouldn't "check in with me" for an IFR clearance withoud filing a FP first, would you?

 

Regarding your R/T examples: wrong R/T can be understandable, but it would still be wrong. For example: turn right heading 355. 9 out of 10 times the direction of the turn will be quite obvious. However, because of the 10th time, I insist on a proper readback every time. So, behaviour like this will cause at least two more tranmissions on an already busy frequency. Standards are there for a reason...

 

Martijn

Link to post
Share on other sites

For example: turn right heading 355. 9 out of 10 times the direction of the turn will be quite obvious. However, because of the 10th time, I insist on a proper readback every time. So, behaviour like this will cause at least two more tranmissions on an already busy frequency. Standards are there for a reason...

Martijn

 

Usually I would say "right heading 355" in case of turning closer to 180 degrees or more - when its important what side to turn into, right or left .... if its 90 degrees turn, for example I fly 270 degrees and receive right turn to 355, then I would just readback "heading 355".

 

We have no problems to say comfortable way ATC wants. No problem. If you want us to talk full line - we will do that, no problem at all. But my experience shows sometimes it just doesnt need to be that way. Its natural process of making messages adapted on certain needs. For example, if there is only CTR position who covers huge area with lots of airfields, we would add our airfield in message, like this: "Barcelona Control, hello, Austrian 566 at Ibiza, request ....". We basically dont need to tell "at Ibiza" but we do say so in order to help the controller, to navigate him, to make his life easier.

This way I would like to point you on WHY we say the way we say. Its not because "Im the boss and I want it" - no; its sort of natural progression of making ATC life easier, having more space on the radio frequency, to quickly understand each other and pay attention to control the airspace and traffic rather than listening the phraseology stuff. Cutting messages sometimes we feel we are making life easier for ATC (and for us too). Remember, we do cut messages only in case when we feel we can do it, when it will be effective for both ATC and us (pilots); if we feel its not comfortable for ATC we would say our messages different way ... But, again, I have never been misunderstood ..... never. No, I lie, Ive been misunderstood by two reasons: bad communication quality and controller-newbie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll add this...

 

You’re cutting corners to save time but then having to explain how it saves time.

 

Phraseology isn’t “stuff” - it exists to eliminate confusion.

 

I will also add that in my real world experience, you do get a wide variety of pilot responses. You’ll have people check in saying “with you” from mainline 777’s to Skyhawks. You’ll have some readback “Cross CHPPR at one three thousand and two five zero knots” and the next guy say “CHPPR at thirteen and two fifty.”

 

When you’re busy, the natural thing to do is speak faster but trying to take those little shortcuts, at least in my experience, ends up causing more work because people don’t understand you.

 

Even coordination, you can tell when you’ve got a trainee on the other end. They’ll omit “point out” “APREQ” or “request” at the beginning of the call and then you take an extra moment to realize what it is they want.

 

Phraseology isn’t stuff and using plain language should only be used after standard phraseology has failed to convey the message.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alexander, indeed, you don't need to say 'at Ibiza'. As a matter of fact, it would be wrong to do so, at least in 'my' FIR:

 

Position reports shall be made:

 

- Immediately after a frequency change (initial call).

1. Over compulsory reporting points, unless otherwise instructed (see item c).

2. As instructed by ATC.

 

- Position reports shall contain:

 

* Initial call:

1. Aircraft identification.

2. Actual level and, when climbing or descending, cleared level.

 

So, on the initial call, your callsign and FL will suffice. I know perfectly well where you are (even before you start talking to me), I just want to check if the FL you believe you're flying at, corresponds with the FL on my screen.

 

Once again, standards are there for a reason. I truly believe nobody has ever misunderstood you, but in an 'as real as it gets' & learning (!) environment, it is still sloppy RT. It may sound 'cool', it may seem to save a few words on the frequency, but IRL (many) people died because of that. I work in this business for a living, and I could write books about perfecty understandable (but very wrong) RT leading to 'interesting' situations.

 

Martijn

 

PS: You keep referring to 'we'. I am not sure who you are referring to. In my experience many, many, many pilots try really hard to use proper RT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, standards are there for a reason. I truly believe nobody has ever misunderstood you, but in an 'as real as it gets' & learning (!) environment, it is still sloppy RT. It may sound 'cool', it may seem to save a few words on the frequency, but IRL (many) people died because of that. I work in this business for a living, and I could write books about perfecty understandable (but very wrong) RT leading to 'interesting' situations.

 

Martijn

 

PS: You keep referring to 'we'. I am not sure who you are referring to. In my experience many, many, many pilots try really hard to use proper RT.

 

Standards for the reason, thats true.

As real as it gets? VATSIM has never been real and never will be. It looks like wrong old-school mind statement .... VATSIM is first of all about having fun. It is written down officially. I know real-life pilots and controllers who tried the Network, laught and left. The most funny for them are those who trying hard to simulate real-life experience, especially on the RT side of things missing the point and much more important parts of the deal .... I remember me when first time flew in real life and have heard how the phraseology sounds in reality .... its like different worlds. Yes, most of the time it sounds the same but what is behind the phraseology - two different worlds.

Learning? I can tell you that every game on the Earth is about to learn something. Basically most of things on the planet is about to learn. Why? Because learning is one of the most basic mechanism of our brains from biology point of view. So what? Learning what? Phraseology? Its not something you need to learn for the whole life.

Moreover, you guys sound like pushing me to somewhere. Listen, Im not going to become real-life pilot for a living, not going to become real-life controller for a living, anything about work in aviation. Im here to have fun. And, hey, wake up, I meet literally every 1 of 2 (50% pilots) who came here just to have fun, not becoming real life aviation professional. Dont mess real life with VATSIM. We dont even have the same structure ......

Do I break any rules? No. Do I have problems with ATC on RT side? No, I can teach how to find understanding with every controller, even with those who dont know English well or something .... Do I adapt standards sometimes? Yes I do as well as VATSIM adapts real-life stuff for virtual space .....

What is your problem?? If there are people who think that they can fly or control after the RT has been learnt - no, you cant.

I really dont get your point. There are people who call themselves "true simmers", who want "as real as it gets". When you give them "as real as it gets" they come and say "hey, its not something happen in real life, you should say like its typed in books". But books are not real life! And books dont insert the mental state in your head. You cant feel what it is like when automated voice in tower room says "Attention! Landing on 01", and you feel the stress and tension flying in the room of controllers .....

 

All I have to say, take it easy. Yes, standards are here for the reason (in real-life), standards are written by tons of blood, tons of dead people - this is aviation baby. But there is some line ...... reality on one side, virtual world on another side .... VATSIM is trying to re-create the experience - its cool, but it is adapted anyway; so be adaptive too (especially if you are controller since being flexible and adaptive is one of the key skills to be an ATC in real life).

 

You asked why pilots say certain thing, I explained. No need to push me. Good luck, have fun.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, you guys sound like pushing me to somewhere. Listen, Im not going to become real-life pilot for a living, not going to become real-life controller for a living, anything about work in aviation. Im here to have fun. And, hey, wake up, I meet literally every 1 of 2 (50% pilots) who came here just to have fun, not becoming real life aviation professional. Dont mess real life with VATSIM. We dont even have the same structure .......

You don't decide how others use the network within its rules.

 

You're not the spokesperson for simmers who've been simming for many years, just because you've been simming for many years.

 

You're promoting poor radio dicipline,which is a lose lose situation for everyone involved. Poor RT is completely unnecessary, makes you sound like a buffoon, and increases the chance of things going wrong. It's also much faster and far less frustrating to use correct RT, as it reduces the need for people to say again. The seconds you think you won by cutting words, you've lost twice over in confused silences and repetitions.

 

You guys, Im sure, understand what we mean - "request IFR clearance, flight plan is filed". The call "request IFR clearance as filed" is just shorter.
Excuse me?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about the whole "as filed" bit. Maybe that's just a polite way to ask for the filed routing? Dunno.

 

Overall though, the real issue is that most people on the network have never flown in any airspace system for real. All they know is the didactic version of how pilots and ATC should interact, and have extrapolated it to VATSIM.

 

Most controllers go overboard, and want to have an exact reproduction of the ATC environment, delighting in all of the fine minutia, that is the 7110. Most pilots want an an ATC experience that approximates the real world, while enjoying some down time with their hobby; flight simming. Two different agendas to be sure, which creates a larger divide between pilots and ATC, than there needs to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phraseology is different every where, there is never going to be a one size fits all solution.

 

In Australia, its quite simple QFA123 request clearance.

 

In the UK its a bit more involved, BAW123 type A320, Stand 517, Information A Request clearance.

 

In Germany its DLH123 request start up

Kirk Christie - VATPAC C3

VATPAC Undercover ATC Agent

Worldflight Perth 737-800 Crew Member

956763

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Atlanta Delivery, JetBlue 796, information LIMA, request IFR clearance to Boston."

 

"errrrrrr... wait... JetBlue 796 Atlanta Delivery, you don't want it 'as filed'?"

 

"Nah. Surprise me."

 

====================

 

Of course you want your clearance 'as filed' -- that's why you filed it that way. It's just extra verbage that isn't necessary. Now, you may not get it 'as filed,' you may get it 'as amended.' But whether you asked for it 'as filed' or not has no bearing on that.

 

That being said, yes, this is a hobbyist network. I don't think it's a battle worth fighting. Some sim pilots have picked up some bad habits from the in-game ATC in FSX that are carrying over into VATSIM. Not a big deal. Just two extra words. (Let's all just agree to laugh at them behind their backs when we hear it. The rest of us are perfect, after all, aren't we?)

Cheers,

-R.

fvJfs7z.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That being said, yes, this is a hobbyist network. I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.

 

 

The understanding that VATSIM is a hobbyist network, has been lost along the way. There is currently a somewhat unreasonable push to make VATSIM an exact reproduction of national airspace systems. The best thing that has happened to VATSIM recently is the FOIA request denials from the FAA regarding airspace, letters of agreement, SOP's, and internal procedures. Hopefully this reduction in real world information will lead to a more relaxed approximation of national airspace systems, and not a word for word reproduction.

 

The network exists because pilots want ATC. It's undeniable that there are not enough controllers trained, and the number online at any one time, outside of an event, is low. This hit and miss coverage is frustrating to pilots.

 

As you said, this is a hobby. It shouldn't take one year, or 18 months, or two years, to become a full controller. A large part of the washout rate is because of this word for work interpretation of what VATSIMS ATC services should be.

 

The best thing VATSIM could do would be to create commonalities in airspace, that while diverging from real world, still provide a real, and believable ATC experience to the pilot. Things like all center airspace ends at 14,000 feet, and all approach airspace extends from the ground to 13,999 feet. Remove all airspace shelves, and simplify the airspace. This will allow for faster training, and make it easier for controllers to move around from ARTCC to ARTCC.

 

Now there are limits on how simple you can make it before you lose the feel of the real airspace, but there are a lot of things that could be simplified to increase the number of controllers, which will increase the number of centers online at any one time, which will proved pilots with a believable ATC experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's undeniable that there are not enough controllers trained, and the number online at any one time, outside of an event, is low. This hit and miss coverage is frustrating to pilots.
I thought you were more interested in missing ATC instead of hitting. I'm confused now.

 

As you said, this is a hobby. It shouldn't take one year, or 18 months, or two years, to become a full controller.
Unfortunately there's a lot to learn and to practice. It takes a while to build the experience to server pilots in a professional manner.

 

For the rest that you wrote: we are not JoinFS or any other wild flying zone, we are VATSIM and we are trying to simulate the real world as much as possible, while not losing sight of the fun-aspect. It does work quite well. If you, as a pilot, do not care to simulate your flights up to a certain level of professionalism, there are other products available that are better for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's undeniable that there are not enough controllers trained, and the number online at any one time, outside of an event, is low. This hit and miss coverage is frustrating to pilots.
I thought you were more interested in missing ATC instead of hitting. I'm confused now.

 

As you said, this is a hobby. It shouldn't take one year, or 18 months, or two years, to become a full controller.
Unfortunately there's a lot to learn and to practice. It takes a while to build the experience to server pilots in a professional manner.

 

For the rest that you wrote: we are not JoinFS or any other wild flying zone, we are VATSIM and we are trying to simulate the real world as much as possible, while not losing sight of the fun-aspect. It does work quite well. If you, as a pilot, do not care to simulate your flights up to a certain level of professionalism, there are other products available that are better for you.

 

Wow, following me from thread to thread. I'm impressed. LOL.

 

Kidding aside, I said that I don't want ATC on every flight. I didn't say I want to avoid ATC.

 

I understand your want for an exact copy of real ATC. It's noble to strive for that. Unfortunately, that is the reason ATC coverage for any flight outside of an event, is spotty at best.

 

Unfortunately, the status quo is hard to break. People get stuck in their ways, even when they see that the status quo is inadequate. Your thinking unfortunately is pervasive in the network, so change is unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That being said, yes, this is a hobbyist network. I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.

 

 

The understanding that VATSIM is a hobbyist network, has been lost along the way. There is currently a somewhat unreasonable push to make VATSIM an exact reproduction of national airspace systems. The best thing that has happened to VATSIM recently is the FOIA request denials from the FAA regarding airspace, letters of agreement, SOP's, and internal procedures. Hopefully this reduction in real world information will lead to a more relaxed approximation of national airspace systems, and not a word for word reproduction.

 

The network exists because pilots want ATC. It's undeniable that there are not enough controllers trained, and the number online at any one time, outside of an event, is low. This hit and miss coverage is frustrating to pilots.

 

As you said, this is a hobby. It shouldn't take one year, or 18 months, or two years, to become a full controller. A large part of the washout rate is because of this word for work interpretation of what VATSIMS ATC services should be.

 

The best thing VATSIM could do would be to create commonalities in airspace, that while diverging from real world, still provide a real, and believable ATC experience to the pilot. Things like all center airspace ends at 14,000 feet, and all approach airspace extends from the ground to 13,999 feet. Remove all airspace shelves, and simplify the airspace. This will allow for faster training, and make it easier for controllers to move around from ARTCC to ARTCC.

 

Now there are limits on how simple you can make it before you lose the feel of the real airspace, but there are a lot of things that could be simplified to increase the number of controllers, which will increase the number of centers online at any one time, which will proved pilots with a believable ATC experience.

 

What a load of waffle .

 

Why do you even care?, you don't want to even interact with ATC most of the time, as you've stated in another thread.

 

HERE

 

I'll admit, there are times when I logon, but don't really want the ATC, but just want to monitor my progress on one of the sites like VATTASTIC. It's easy to get around the whole ATC thing though. Just tell the controller you need to step away from the mic for 30 minutes, and that's that. By the time you "come back", you're out of most ATC sectors.

 

And

 

In controlled airspace, just tell the controller you need to step away for 30 minutes, and that's it. Very few will fight that request, and deny it. It's how you present it to them. In other words, tell them (ATC) what you are going to do (leave comms for 30 minutes), instead of asking. Presenting it that way primes them to accept what you want, and very few will ever push back in my experience of doing this. Just a matter of using "human expectations and psychology" as a lever to get what you want from the controller.

 

"human expectations and psychology"

 

I really did laugh at this one , do you like applying your 'psychology' to a game?.

 

Hmmm, what would a professional say about the contradictions here, maybe they could apply some 'psychology' of their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...